Evaluation of the Sea Grant Program Review Process (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Program Oversight and Management
4 Program Oversight and Management
Pages 69-86
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 69... ...
competitive bonus awards to individual Sea Grant programs based on their relative ranking as a result of the program review process. Although the program oversight, structure and management processes followed by the NSGCP are somewhat unique, program review by other federal, state and private grant programs share similarities and dissimilarities with Sea Grant's review program.
|
From page 70... ...
, and perhaps within the federal government as a whole, in terms of the use of annual rating and rankings to determine eligibility for and size of bonus funding. However, the use of formal performance reviews of individual programs is common.
|
From page 71... ...
Department of Agriculture administered Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA-CSREES) , uses formulae to allocate about $550 million annually to public land grant colleges and universities pursuant to several federal laws1 (See Box 4.1)
|
From page 72... ...
The periodic review and evaluation process of CSREES programs is similar to the Sea Grant review process but with significant differences. In both programs an outside panel of experts is convened to review pertinent program documents, conduct a site visit to the program, and report findings and recommendations based on a set of pre-determined review criteria.
|
From page 73... ...
The national laboratories funded by the Department of Energy and managed by contractors also review all projects before they are approved for funding. The individual Sea Grant programs resemble some additional aspects of federally funded centers.
|
From page 74... ...
. Although Sea Grant sponsors some nationwide open competitions for research funding, most Sea Grant research funds are allocated as formula-based block grants to the individual Sea Grant programs, where funds are allocated to outreach and education programs, program administration, and through competitive awards to investigators.
|
From page 75... ...
While there is within-program competition for research funds in the formula-funded USDA-CSREES and individual Sea Grant programs, there has not been, but could be, a comparable within-program competition for outreach and education funds. STRATEGIC PLANNING AS A PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Strategic planning is a cornerstone of effective program management.
|
From page 76... ...
Hence, there is a need for top-down and bottom-up integration of strategic plans. While integration is important for overall program coordination and oversight, the NSGCP strategic plan should be more than a simple collation of the strategic plans developed by the individual Sea Grant programs, and the individual strategic plans should be more than a simple subset of the NSGCP strategic plan.
|
From page 77... ...
Programs that achieve the identified goals should be assured of receiving superior or outstanding ratings. Because the NSGCP is required to prepare a new strategic plan every four years, there are advantages to having the individual Sea Grant programs prepare or update their strategic plans on a coincident cycle.
|
From page 78... ...
Similarly, the National Sea Grant Review Panel (NSGRP) has become overly concerned with the periodic assessment process.
|
From page 79... ...
. Although NSGCP has annual reporting requirements, ongoing interactions between the NSGO and the individual Sea Grant programs, and a periodic program assessment process, the information provided through the annual reports and ongoing interactions between NSGO and individual programs could play a more prominent role in the annual assessment of programs, and specifically, could provide information for program oversight and management.
|
From page 80... ...
As recommended in Chapter 3, performance metrics are needed that can be readily validated, and that can assess the quality and significance of program activities, outcomes, and impacts. If the annual reports describe activities, outcomes, and impacts in terms of the same metrics that form a basis for the periodic PAT reviews, then the annual ranking of the individual Sea Grant programs could be based on a combination of information submitted in the annual reports, information available to the NSGO through other reporting requirements, and interactions between NSGO representatives and the individual Sea Grant programs, augmented by the PAT reports and the individual program directors' responses to the PAT reports.
|
From page 81... ...
At the same time, more fully incorporating the annual reports and other ongoing information (communicated via miscellaneous documentation, e-mails, phone conversations, general site visits by the program officer, and program interactions) regarding program activities and progress, will ensure that the annual ranking is based on the most recent information about each individual program.
|
From page 82... ...
The Director of the National Sea Grant College Program should ensure that program administration carried out by the National Sea Grant Office makes full and consistent use of annual reporting, frequent and meaningful interactions with individual Sea Grant programs by National Sea Grant Office program officers, and the development, approval, and implementation of strategic plans to monitor and assess the performance of the individual Sea Grant programs on an ongoing basis. Reverse site visits (see LSAMP case study, Box 4.2)
|
From page 83... ...
The Director of the National Sea Grant College Program, in consultation with the National Sea Grant Review Panel, should create a process for determining the underlying causes of disagreement for instances where a Program Assessment Team review appears to reach conclusions at odds with the most recent annual assessment provided by the National Sea Grant Office. Role of the National Sea Grant Office The NSGO does not currently play a sufficient role in ongoing program assistance, monitoring, communication, and assessment, nor does it maintain close ongoing working relationships with the individual Sea Grant programs.
|
From page 84... ...
Coordination between the individual Sea Grant program director and the NSGO on strategic planning can also provide the NSGO with feedback on local trends and shifts in local and regional perspectives, which could improve the content of future NSGCP strategic plans. The Director of the National Sea Grant College Program, in consultation with National Sea Grant Review Panel, should formally review and approve each individual strategic plan.
|
From page 85... ...
is thus insufficient to support meaningful annual rankings of the programs as required by Congress. The Director of the National Sea Grant College Program, in consultation with the National Sea Grant Review Panel and the directors of the individual Sea Grant programs, should modify the NSGO Final Evaluation review process so that every individual Sea Grant program is rated and ranked each year.
|
From page 86... ...
86 EVALUATION OF THE SEA GRANT PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS seen as a credible source of such insight and advice to all parties may require that the NSGRP redefine its role in carrying out some components of the assessment. For example, greater consideration could be given to changing the NSGRP role to that of an observer, rather than actual evaluator, during the periodic assessments.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.